A privately owned business should be legally allowed to choose who it will and will not serve based on any criteria that business chooses.

Iacov (PRO)

Definitions:
Privately owned business: a company or business with private ownership.
Legally: permitted by law.
Serves: perform duties or services for.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.dictionary.com...
http://www.investopedia.com...

It is my belief that from all legal stand points a private business should be permitted to choose who it serves by any criteria they see fit weather that be racially motivated, religiously motivated, or any other personal belief. For example say for some reason IHOP no longer wants to serve asians then they can do this with no legal actions against them. Now let me be clear I do not support this behavior and should IHOP make this decision then I even though I am not Asian will no longer go to IHOP. This is how the free market works once the public learns that a business discriminates against a group of people the public will begin to no longer use said business forcing the discriminatory business to close. I support a businesses right to deny service legally not ethically.

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-04-26 01:39:03

| Speak Round

Povski (CON)

Thanks Iacov for the definitions, they were helpful. I tried to base my thoughts around these concepts. And here is what I think.

Brands can greatly influence a community. And in the United States most of the companies and the brands that they produce are privately owned. Their range of action is great even within the limits of the law. Form is not sufficient for a peaceful comunity. It's not enough for an action to be legal in order to be beneficial for society.

Form - that is how a state is organized and how it operates- determines the efficiency with which things are being done, while
Content is provided by the deeds themselves. That's why brands can set the tone and lead the way to better or worse. And this decision shouldn't be left entirely to the discretion of the owners.

The problem with the selection criteria is the following. When too much power is in few hands, a slip of the hand cand be heavy. If a private company that is owned by a small circle of investors who hold the reins is getting powerful enough, then their criteria of selection becomes a fragile and important matter.

It's not just the profit that the companies make from selling their products that matters. From a political stand point, it's also what the comunity gains from their services being available.

Can a company refuse to serve anybody without that taking a toll on the consumers?

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-04-27 23:54:05

| Speak Round

Iacov (PRO)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-04-30 23:56:02

| Speak Round

View As PDF